Speed Awareness Signs for Cyclists

[LadyG]

16 minutes ago, Chagall said:

Read it again, I quoted you and I was replying about you when on your bike!    "I happen to have two bells, one ping to alert, if no response, a louder ring, if no response, furious loud ringing and a shout if they still show no response, I expect some response, otherwise they are unaware and likely to wander in to my path."  

 

Do you consider it acceptable for cyclists to expect pedestrians to move for you by shouts and bell ringing? 

If they are blocking the towpath how am I supposed to get past them? 

But if I am coming behind them, it is natural to ping the bell, and if they make no sign that they have heard me, and are still blocking the path, I would expect that they are  deaf, in which case they need to be made aware by ringing a louder bell, remember that they are walking at 4mph and I am riding at 6mph. There is normally room for a cyclist and a pedestrian, but if they are in the middle of the towpath they could move either way. 

Should I stop and say, excuse me, this is a shared towpath,  would be kind enough to move to your left I will overtake on your right? Sometimes I have been overtaken by cyclists who don't ring a bell, but just say I'm on your right as they pass, I could do that, but I prefer the pedestrian makes the decision if such is needed. I don't get your argument, are you saying I should take a chance and just swoosh past them without alerting them to my presence? 

Edited January 26, 2022 by LadyG

[Chagall]

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If they are blocking the towpath how am I supposed to get past them? 

But if I am coming behind them, it is natural to ping the bell, and if they make no sign that they have heard me, and are still blocking the path, I would expect that they are  deaf, in which case they need to be made aware by ringing a louder bell, remember that they are walking at 4mph and I am riding at 6mph. There is normally room for a cyclist and a pedestrian, but if they are in the middle of the towpath they could move either way. 

Then as you are much faster, you need to slow and even perhaps stop and walk the bike until you can pass them safely, especially if it is apparent they have not heard your bell, or your shouts and even more frantic bell ringing.  You have commented that when you are a pedestrian you have often been "given a fright" by speeding cyclists coming up behind you.     

 

[LadyG]

On 18/06/2021 at 18:10, Jim Riley said:

Pedestrians on the towpath have priority, they have a right to meander aimlessly if they want. Cyclists must give way. 

Is that really the case, I'm not sure that would stand up in court if a cyclists hit a drunk behaving in a drunken manner, ended up in water, and drowned, would the cyclist be held responsible, I don't think that would stand up in court as manslaughter. 

Regardless, I will continue to alert pedestrians with my cycle bell prior to overtaking, I consider that safer for both parties. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by LadyG

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, Chagall said:

Then as you are much faster, you need to slow and even perhaps stop and walk the bike until you can pass them safely, especially if it is apparent they have not heard your bell, or your shouts and even more frantic bell ringing.  You have commented that when you are a pedestrian you have often been "given a fright" by speeding cyclists coming up behind you.     

 

Yes, speeding cyclists who are not alerting me to their presence, exactly why I use my bell, if on a bike. 

I would be unable to walk past the standard towpath walker as I am a very  slow walker. I've never ever seen any cyclist get off their bike to walk past a pedestrian going in the same direction. I might have to get off my bike if I should meet a crowd of people face on and they refuse to move over to allow me room to get past, it might happen if the towpath is extremely narrow, but a rare occurance. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by LadyG

[Chagall]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

If they are blocking the towpath how am I supposed to get past them? 

But if I am coming behind them, it is natural to ping the bell, and if they make no sign that they have heard me, and are still blocking the path, I would expect that they are  deaf, in which case they need to be made aware by ringing a louder bell, remember that they are walking at 4mph and I am riding at 6mph. There is normally room for a cyclist and a pedestrian, but if they are in the middle of the towpath they could move either way. 

Should I stop and say, excuse me, this is a shared towpath,  would be kind enough to move to your left I will overtake on your right? Sometimes I have been overtaken by cyclists who don't ring a bell, but just say I'm on your right as they pass, I could do that, but I prefer the pedestrian makes the decision if such is needed. I don't get your argument, are you saying I should take a chance and just swoosh past them without alerting them to my presence? 

Since you have added, again, further comments to your post I will answer your last line and question.  My "argument" point is that if they have not heard your bell and shouts you need to stop and walk the bike past them, most pedestrians will be aware when something is coming up behind them and will politely move to a respectful cyclist.  Suggesting they might be deaf and so ringing louder is nonsensical.

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Chagall
New Years resolution was flagging!

[IanD]

On 18/06/2021 at 18:10, Jim Riley said:

Pedestrians on the towpath have priority, they have a right to meander aimlessly if they want. Cyclists must give way. 

That's not what the Highway Code says, see what I posted earlier. Both have to give consideration to the other, neither has priority.

 

4 hours ago, Chagall said:

As does furious shouts and frantic bell ringing demanding that you move in case you wander into their path!  It seems it is impossible to stop and walk the cycle past or wait for them to pass you. At one time cyclists had to dismount for pedestrians on the towpath but cyclists no longer do that.  

 

 

When was that? IIRC it wasn't the case in the days (1980s) when you had to pay BWB for a license to cycle on the towpath, and I'm not aware of such a rule since. Are you sure you're not imagining it?

Edited January 26, 2022 by IanD

[Chagall]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's not what the Highway Code says, see what I posted earlier. Both have to give consideration to the other, neither has priority.

 

 

When was that? IIRC it wasn't the case in the days (1980s) when you had to pay BWB for a license to cycle on the towpath, and I'm not aware of such a rule since. Are you sure you're not imagining it?

From memory and I cannot find legislation from then.  I certainly remember far earlier that the 1980's and cyclists did dismount if pedestrians were not aware of them...it rarely happens now and was my point. Unfortunately the time limit to edit the use of my word "had" to 'used' has now passed. 

 

C&RT do have a section of information regarding cyclists on their web site and I quote a selection from that: 

Pedestrians wear headphones so when I ring my bell they don’t move. What should I do?
Pedestrians are generally the most vulnerable and have priority at all times, so whilst it’s a good idea to let others know you are there by ringing a bell or calling out, this shouldn’t be a demand. 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Chagall said:

From memory and I cannot find legislation from then.  I certainly remember far earlier that the 1980's and cyclists did dismount if pedestrians were not aware of them...it rarely happens now and was my point. Unfortunately the time limit to edit the use of my word "had" to 'used' has now passed. 

 

C&RT do have a section of information regarding cyclists on their web site and I quote a selection from that: 

Pedestrians wear headphones so when I ring my bell they don’t move. What should I do?
Pedestrians are generally the most vulnerable and have priority at all times, so whilst it’s a good idea to let others know you are there by ringing a bell or calling out, this shouldn’t be a demand. 

 

Up to and including the 1980s (anyone know when this stopped?) you were supposed to have a BWB cycle license. IIRC it came with pretty similar advice on the back of the card to that today -- take care, ring your bell, slow down when passing pedestrians if there's room, if not enough room get off and walk past.

 

I expect the recent advice in the Highway Code (see earlier, essentially this gives both equal priority) either overrides or supersedes anything CART may have published earlier.

 

The basic rule of "consider others and don't be a tw*t" applies to cyclists and pedestrians. Also car drivers, scooter riders, shiny boat owners, scruffy boat owners, fishermen, canoeists... 😉

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

I expect the recent advice in the Highway Code (see earlier, essentially this gives both equal priority) either overrides or supersedes anything CART may have published earlier.

 

Is the Higway code actually applicable to private property , (and not even a footpath or Restricted Byway).

The towpaths are actually 'permissive paths only'.

 

A restricted byway allows a right of way on foot, on horseback, or leading a horse, cycling and for any vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. ... It is possible for landowners to allow access over their land without dedicating a right of way. These accesses are called permissive paths.

[IanD]

Arguing about the law is missing the point, it's diversion. Walkers, joggers, and cyclists are all just people wanting to use the towpath to either get from A to B or for exercise, they all have equal rights to do this and equal requirements to consider others.

 

It's not a tribal war where one faction wants to eliminate the other, regardless of whether some people seem to want it to be 😉

 

The only justification for priority on the towpath -- remember the name -- would be horses or people hauling boats...

[pete.i]

I would suggest that people like LadyG are not going to listen to any reasonable discussions. I would also suggest that LadyG, and other cyclists. read the towpath code which clearly says that pedestrians have priority on the towpaths.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/stay-kind-slow-down/our-towpath-code

 

Take note of item 2.

[Higgs]

Pedestrians cannot hit a cyclist at speed. Two pedestrians colliding would have little impact on each other. Yesterday, standing at the bank's edge, I was speaking to someone across the canal. A cyclist whizzed by behind me, and without warning. Some cyclists are completely mindless. . 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, LadyG said:

If they are blocking the towpath how am I supposed to get past them? 

But if I am coming behind them, it is natural to ping the bell, and if they make no sign that they have heard me, and are still blocking the path, I would expect that they are  deaf, in which case they need to be made aware by ringing a louder bell, remember that they are walking at 4mph and I am riding at 6mph. There is normally room for a cyclist and a pedestrian, but if they are in the middle of the towpath they could move either way. 

Should I stop and say, excuse me, this is a shared towpath,  would be kind enough to move to your left I will overtake on your right? Sometimes I have been overtaken by cyclists who don't ring a bell, but just say I'm on your right as they pass, I could do that, but I prefer the pedestrian makes the decision if such is needed. I don't get your argument, are you saying I should take a chance and just swoosh past them without alerting them to my presence? 

You expect pedestrians to stand aside for a cyclist, usually on the muddy wet overgrown part away from any hard surface. Why should it not be normal to expect cyclists to use the verge to pass pedestrians? Is this another example of specious entitlement behaviour?

[Mad Harold]

Having been whacked on the shoulder from behind with no warning by a passing cyclist,who didn't stop,I have no sympathy whatsoever with cyclists.

I am suffering with hearing loss,and added to this is the fact that any sound I hear is omnidirectional (I can't tell which direction a sound is coming from)

There should be no ifs or buts,a cyclist should give way to pedestrians at all times.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You expect pedestrians to stand aside for a cyclist, usually on the muddy wet overgrown part away from any hard surface. Why should it not be normal to expect cyclists to use the verge to pass pedestrians? Is this another example of specious entitlement behaviour?

 

I expect whoever can move out of the way to pass the most easily to do so, it depends on the circumstances.

 

1. If the path is wide then there's no issue, the pedestrian walks along one side and the cyclist passes on the other.

 

2. If the path is narrower and there's an easy/clean place for the pedestrian to walk along for a few yards (like a grass verge) then they should do this, it's hardly a big hassle, and it's safer than having the cyclist ride up onto and along the grass and possibly damage it. Unless the pedestrian is pushing a buggy or pulling a trolley, in which case see case 3.

 

3. If the path is too narrow to safely pass or stepping off it means deep mud for the pedestrian or is otherwise inconvenient, the cyclist should dismount and walk past.

 

In other words, if the pedestrian can easily/cleanly/safely let the cyclist pass at no real inconvenience to themselves, they should do so. If they can't, it's up to the cyclist to pass safely, dismounting if necessary.

 

Which I believe is what CART intend, as well as the new Highway Code, and makes sense so long as you don't follow the Daily Wail view that "others" are inferior 😉

 

31 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Having been whacked on the shoulder from behind with no warning by a passing cyclist,who didn't stop,I have no sympathy whatsoever with cyclists.

I am suffering with hearing loss,and added to this is the fact that any sound I hear is omnidirectional (I can't tell which direction a sound is coming from)

There should be no ifs or buts,a cyclist should give way to pedestrians at all times.

 

Having been forced into the canal by a pedestrian while cycling, I have no sympathy whatsoever with pedestrians 😉 [warning -- may contain irony]

 

Cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, car drivers, shiny boaters, scruffy boaters -- they all have some people who act like tw*ts, and they are the real problem. You're guilty of tarring everyone with the same brush.

Edited January 27, 2022 by IanD

[Higgs]

A speeding cyclist is a menace on the towpath, where there are pedestrians. If the cyclist happens to hit a tree root and veers off into the canal, so be it. 

 

 

[Mad Harold]

31 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

 

There should be no ifs or buts,a cyclist should give way to pedestrians at all times.

I am unrepentant.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

I am unrepentant.

Do you also read the Daily Wail? Your attitude of "I matter, they don't" is straight from their playbook, a favourite read of authoritarians and fascists everywhere... 😉

 

Just to be clear, sometimes I'm a boater, sometimes I'm a walker, sometimes I'm a cyclist. Hopefully I'm a human being who takes some account of others instead of just myself, whichever hat I happen to be wearing on a particular day.

 

The world would be a much better place if everyone thought like this instead of being tribal and divisive and always looking to make everything "their" fault -- regardless of whether "their" means cyclists, car drivers, immigrants, the French, single parents, LGBTQ people, asylum seekers, black kids, Muslims...

Edited January 27, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Some may find the requirements in the attached document, regarding the use of shared paths, of interest.

 

Spacing and physical barriers between cyclists and pedestrians are a preferred option, as are minimum widths and verge design.

 

 

 

Shared Paths Dimensions.pdf

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Some may find the requirements in the attached document, regarding the use of shared paths, of interest.

 

Spacing and physical barriers between cyclists and pedestrians are a preferred option, as are minimum widths and verge design.

 

Shared Paths Dimensions.pdf 261.06 kB · 0 downloads

All totally impractical on canal towpaths, of course... 😉

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Do you also read the Daily Wail? Your attitude of "I matter, they don't" is straight from their playbook, a favourite read of authoritarians and fascists everywhere... 😉

 

Quite frankly, cyclists on a rat run don't matter, to any great degree on the canal towpath. 

 

 

 

[dixi188]

As a matter if interest, why are all the speeds quoted in kph, when we use mph for all road speeds in the UK.

I know we went over to the SI system in 1971 but old units are still used sometimes, ie. knots.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, dixi188 said:

As a matter if interest, why are all the speeds quoted in kph, when we use mph for all road speeds in the UK.

I know we went over to the SI system in 1971 but old units are still used sometimes, ie. knots.

 

The same reason that all the distance markers along the Rivers (eg the Trent) are in Km (having replaced the 'miles' markers) doesn't half make it difficult when the maker that should appear according to Nicholsons doesn't appear but one appears some time earlier / later in the 'wrong' location.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Alway Swilby]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The same reason that all the distance markers along the Rivers (eg the Trent) are in Km (having replaced the 'miles' markers) doesn't half make it difficult when the maker that should appear according to Nicholsons doesn't appear but one appears some time earlier / later in the 'wrong' location.

Or you could use a better map than Nicholsons.

 

[Momac]

57 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The same reason that all the distance markers along the Rivers (eg the Trent) are in Km (having replaced the 'miles' markers) doesn't half make it difficult when the maker that should appear according to Nicholsons doesn't appear but one appears some time earlier / later in the 'wrong' location.

What year was that change to km  markers made ?

The km markers have been in place and on the Trent series charts as long as I have been boating on the Trent - which is since 2008.